The article about the Island Corridor Foundation survey, and their claims, should have been provided in context. I tried to take the survey, but was too late, with only an error showing ‘Page Not Found’ when linking to a news story back in September. Rail enthusiasts, who lurk at rail-friendly Facebook sites or the ICF website itself, would have quickly completed the survey resulting in sampling population bias.
The survey questions were also biased according to letters to the editor, which luckily were printed. The ICF survey questions vanished, removing a quick check on the legitimacy of the ‘survey.’
The ICF is sadly an organization 100 per cent committed to the reinstitution of rail on the corridor, while waving away recent and older studies comparing different transit modes on the south Island.
The recent forward-looking South Island Transportation Strategy relegates passenger rail on the Island Rail Corridor (formerly E&N Railway) between Vic West and Langford as low priority while omitting the railway north of Langford from its priorities.
Volume 2 of the study shows that the Island Corridor rail is the worst performing option for transit on a dollar/new rider basis. See page 51 of the study.
The study shows the most cost-effective transit is buses on bus lanes, followed by ferries, then buses on the corridor converted to a busway, then light rapid transit on the Trans-Canada Highway corridor through south Saanich. The worst ranked are the E&N corridor rail options, both commuter rail and intercity rail.
While a busway on the E&N corridor in the Capital Regional District and possibly the Malahat may make good use of funds, a bike path north of Shawnigan Lake would be very logical.
This aligns with another goal of the South Island Transportation Study which states that active transportation needs to be encouraged, especially well-connected trails and grade separations of trails from roads. A bike and walking path along the E&N would provide some grade separations, such as the underpass at the highway just north of Ladysmith.
A multi-use active transportation path making use of existing trestles and bridges would definitely provide better passage between cities, especially river crossings. This contrasts to the ICF rail-with-trails which would not provide trail passage across rivers and ravines for decades to come.
Graeme Lamson,
Qualicum Beach